How many teams in melbourne can be financally sustainable

[TheFoxhat]

With most teams in Melbourne posting $$$ losses how many teams can be successfully supported without making more losses
The A.F.L can't prop up teams forever for the sake of the game how many teams should there be in Melbourne..????????

 

[Ron]

If u were starting a new comp right now, you wouldn't have more than 6 teams at melbourne. That would be the max.
But it isn't like that, and the AFL should do all it can to help keep all 10 alive.

 

[mic59]

True there are lots of losses but some of those clubs could be expected to turn things around. There still are too many clubs in Melbourne, though, and this will just mean some of them will continue posting losses.
Australia seems to be the only place where this happens. In the NFL only New York and Washington have multiple teams(2), most soccer cities have a maximum of 2 teams, even London has less than 10 and that includes all divisions.
6 would be best, but that would mean a rather severe pruning which would meet too many barriers. The best thing would be to try for 8 with 4 clubs merging to form 2.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by mic59

Australia seems to be the only place where this happens. In the NFL only New York and Washington have multiple teams(2), most soccer cities have a maximum of 2 teams, even London has less than 10 and that includes all divisions.

Yes a *truly* national competition would be great, like they do everywhere else in the world. Expanding from the VFL was a mistake.

 

[DaveW]

Even 6 (the lowest option) is too many.

 

[MagpieJoel]

Originally posted by DaveW


Yes a *truly* national competition would be great, like they do everywhere else in the world. Expanding from the VFL was a mistake.

The AFL wouldn't be like it is today without all the Melbourne clubs. Don't be a fool.

 

[Kenny_01]

8.

 

[Rob]

Originally posted by MagpieJoel


The AFL wouldn't be like it is today without all the Melbourne clubs. Don't be a fool.

Wasn't there a plan (founded by Elliott I think) for the strongest 6 Victorian clubs to start their own comp with sides from all over the country providede by other state leagues?

Wonder what the AFL would have been like then.....

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

Originally posted by DaveW
Even 6 (the lowest option) is too many.

What a surprise it is an interstate fan saying that

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Rob
Wonder what the AFL would have been like then.....

Perhaps Freo would make a profit......

 

[MarkT]

I did not vote did not vote because the answer depends on a lot of things. To an extent, this is a trick question.

As it stands now no more than about 5 or 6 teams can survive in Melbourne. Those teams are Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Richmond and Hawthorn. None of those clubs are guaranteed survival, it just that their distant and/or recent past has ensured they are better placed and they have earned a relatively more sustainable business position. Geelong are a different case. Because of their location and separate market they could be very profitable or disastrously unprofitable. The rest have a huge fight on their hands. That is the competition that the AFL has built. I am not anti National league but far from saving the struggling Melbourne clubs, the introduction of non Victorian clubs has guaranteed the demise of some Melbourne clubs by pushing the operating costs of all clubs through the roof and then further. It is simply not possible that the culling will stop at Fitzroy. Not all the clubs apart from the above will fall over but some will IMO.

I think we could survive with all existing clubs but there has to be fundamental change to the competition and the AFL has to give back revenue streams to the clubs. The AFL is a giant money pit and we have highly paid Commissioners with huge department budgets making little contribution to anything except the certain demise of some clubs.

IMO the AFL should be a lean body administering the rules and letting the clubs determine their own fate. It is a fat autocratic bureaucracy that has no proactive intent. It reacts to large scale media or public outrage too late and spins everything to reduce its own culpability. Disasters like Colonial, letting Brisbane form as a team from Carrara, getting involved in merger pushes and preventing others and many smaller scale issues have burnt money like it truly grows on trees. Everything from the draw/fixtures to which teams are given assisted passage to success is agenda driven and secret.

Most importantly, the game raised massive amounts of money and no one seems to be able to say where it all goes. The AFL is in a position to drastically cut cost by acting as a buying agent on a huge scale for everything from TV advertising time to lollies for the after match glucose intake.

For a long time, 12 clubs survived in a smaller market. When some clubs got themselves into trouble the VFL decided that rather than face the issues and get the clubs in a healthy position before expanding nationally, they would push for a bigger scale competition and try and pay off debts with cash injections. The clubs that had poor business models still had poor business models but they had more money to lose. Then more clubs are introduced. Some had poor business models and some had very good ones. Now we wonder why so many are in such bad shape.

No clubs need go under but I have absolutely no doubt that 2 Melbourne clubs will not exists in their present form in 2 years time. It could be 3 or 4 with mergers but it will definitely be at least 2. Right now there are club directors personally liable for huge debts because they cannot say the club can repay all the debts it incurs can be repaid. I would question whether some of those clubs actually have the ability to change their lot.

The non Victorian clubs are not home free either. Adelaide and WCE have larger enough markets to have real confidence in their long term survival. Port Adelaide have shown over a long period they know how to run a football club and that, despite a supporter base barely big enough to compete in the current environment should give them some confidence. The rest have shown no evidence that they have long term sustainable business models able to survive in their own right. If Melbourne clubs go under for financial reasons they will be a huge push to ensure that all clubs individually can stand on their own feet. The AFL will be forced to be accou8ntable for every dollar. That will put huge pressure on Fremantle, Brisbane and Sydney. The size of the Sydney market provides huge opportunities as does Brisbane to a lesser extent. They may not be enough in a post Melbourne club cull environment. When traditional; clubs die, these clubs will be hard pushed convincing the remaining clubs that they should be assisted financially. All that means is they will lose any safety net and will either have to make money or be left hanging.

Well there is a lot of speculation there on my part but that’s where I see it all heading right now. I hope I am wrong.

 

[grayham]

If you use the formula of 1 team per 500,000 population in AFL states, and 1 team per 2,000,000 in non-AFL states, then the teams would be like this:

Perth: 2
Adelaide: 2
Melbourne: 6
Geelong: 1 (just)
Sydney: 2
Brisbane/Gold coast: 1

14 team comp, with each team playing each other twice in a slightly longer season.

 

[Davo75]

Originally posted by Ron

But it isn't like that, and the AFL should do all it can to help keep all 10 alive.

Why?????????????????????????????????

Compare participation in the Top League of a particular sport in any country. It is a privelige! If a certain club isnt financially viable then it cannot justify the right to compete in the top competition available. Why is it the responsibility of the League Body to make sure these clubs survive when it is clear for everyone to see that they are not a viable entity!

A few Football Clubs in Melbourne will regret their stubborness to either merge or relocate when the oppurtunity was there....

 

[MagpieJoel]

I wouldn't rate Carlton a high chance of surviving at the moment.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Davo75
Why?????????????????????????????????

Because the loss of any club, and the likely loss of the majority of it's fans (and their money) to the sport will be devastating to the AFL. If a club other than my own was forced out of the AFL I would certainly feel less passionate about the cometition.

Compare participation in the Top League of a particular sport in any country. It is a privelige! If a certain club isnt financially viable then it cannot justify the right to compete in the top competition available. Why is it the responsibility of the League Body to make sure these clubs survive when it is clear for everyone to see that they are not a viable entity!

Shall we get rid of Brisbane because they have made a big loss?
Should we have got rid of Hawthorn who were in the crap not so long ago, Collingwood, Richmond, Sydney? Shall we get rid of Carlton now? How about Freo who I doubt have made a profit since entering the AFL?

My club doesn't have a lot of money, and we have a debt of a few million. We have also been one of the most successful sides in recent times. The Bulldogs have just come out of a period where they were regular participants in the finals, the Saints made a GF 5 years ago, Melbourne made it three years ago. All struggling clubs, all have more than earned their position in the AFL.

A few Football Clubs in Melbourne will regret their stubborness to either merge or relocate when the oppurtunity was there....

Not as much as they would regret throwing away their identity and a huge proportion of their supporters before giving themselves every possible opportunity to survive in their own right.

Moomba

 

[Davo75]

Originally posted by moomba


Because the loss of any club, and the likely loss of the majority of it's fans (and their money) to the sport will be devastating to the AFL. If a club other than my own was forced out of the AFL I would certainly feel less passionate about the cometition.



Shall we get rid of Brisbane because they have made a big loss?
Should we have got rid of Hawthorn who were in the crap not so long ago, Collingwood, Richmond, Sydney? Shall we get rid of Carlton now? How about Freo who I doubt have made a profit since entering the AFL?

My club doesn't have a lot of money, and we have a debt of a few million. We have also been one of the most successful sides in recent times. The Bulldogs have just come out of a period where they were regular participants in the finals, the Saints made a GF 5 years ago, Melbourne made it three years ago. All struggling clubs, all have more than earned their position in the AFL.



Not as much as they would regret throwing away their identity and a huge proportion of their supporters before giving themselves every possible opportunity to survive in their own right.

Moomba

You are ignoring the inevitable!

As for all the clubs youve mentioned. I couldnt care less!

Some of you should have more wisely spent the $4 Million my club paid to enter this competition that we in part with 3 Other Clubs Saved!

Good Luck!

 

[The Spornstar]

Originally posted by MagpieJoel
I wouldn't rate Carlton a high chance of surviving at the moment.

So you're saying we're more likely to fold than survive?

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Davo75
You are ignoring the inevitable!

I'm ignoring nothing. No difference to me between my side merging and my side folding. No difference to plenty of people I know between my side relocating and my side folding. I don't think either is inevitable and I am more than happy for the club to do exhaust every possible option for the club to continue in it's own right.

As for all the clubs youve mentioned. I couldnt care less!

All of those have done a hell of a lot more for the comp, and have earned their position in the AFL more than anything out of Adelaide.

Some of you should have more wisely spent the $4 Million my club paid to enter this competition that we in part with 3 Other Clubs Saved!

Would that be the $4 million you paid which gave you an intstant share of an asset that is now worth over $6 million to your club. That's $6 million that the original VFL clubs have given up to let your club into the competition.

Moomba

 

[Davo75]

hahahahahahaha!!!!!

I laugh at the fact that you actually believe what your saying!

1986 Quote Ross Oakley "The League had it's backside out of it's pants"

What happened in 1987? Some sort of National Concept was introduced!

Quote Ron Barassi "Forget about Australian Rules Football if you dont have a National Competition"

To Quote you "More right than anything out of Adelaide"

I Laugh at people like you, your threatened by a City/State which has a quarter of your population its laughable! You didnt mind taking players from SA and that still happens, remember mate that Melbourne and Adelaide are seperated by about 750kms we aint that different from each other!

You give me examples of Teams/Clubs whatever that have more right to be involved in a National Competition than anything West of Nihill??

Your in denial, and I would be worried if my club could fold, merge, whatever!

I know who I will be supporting for the rest of my life in this Farce which is the AFL!

Dont make comments in reference to South Australian Football mate........... you know nothing about it!!!!!!

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Davo75
To Quote you "More right than anything out of Adelaide"

For a start if you are going to quote me quote me correctly. I never said they had more right than anything out of Adelaide, I said that they have done more for the comp, and have earned their position in the AFL more than anything out of Adelaide.

I Laugh at people like you, your threatened by a City/State which has a quarter of your population its laughable! You didnt mind taking players from SA and that still happens, remember mate that Melbourne and Adelaide are seperated by about 750kms we aint that different from each other!

Why do you think I am threatened by Adelaide. More of the little man's (towns) complex at play here I suspect.

You give me examples of Teams/Clubs whatever that have more right to be involved in a National Competition than anything West of Nihill??

Once again I didn't say that had more right, but they have earned their position (over hundred years for several of them) more than anything out of Adelaide who just paid their licence fee and were in.

Your in denial, and I would be worried if my club could fold, merge, whatever!

I know who I will be supporting for the rest of my life in this Farce which is the AFL!

Good on you.

Dont make comments in reference to South Australian Football mate........... you know nothing about it!!!!!!

You wouldn't have a clue what I know about South Australian Footy. I have lived in Melbourne for the past five years or so, I'll give one guess where I lived before that, and where most of my family still lives.

By the way, I note you didn't choose to respond to the fact that the $4 million licence fee you are whining about is now worth far in excess of that. Bit difficult for you to come up with something that suits the pro-forma, small town, bitter anti-Victorian arguments many ignorant ill-informed South Australians (including yourself it seems) have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Moomba

 

[Davo75]

Originally posted by moomba


For a start if you are going to quote me quote me correctly. I never said they had more right than anything out of Adelaide, I said that they have done more for the comp, and have earned their position in the AFL more than anything out of Adelaide.



Why do you think I am threatened by Adelaide. More of the little man's (towns) complex at play here I suspect.



Once again I didn't say that had more right, but they have earned their position (over hundred years for several of them) more than anything out of Adelaide who just paid their licence fee and were in.



Good on you.



You wouldn't have a clue what I know about South Australian Footy. I have lived in Melbourne for the past five years or so, I'll give one guess where I lived before that, and where most of my family still lives.

By the way, I note you didn't choose to respond to the fact that the $4 million licence fee you are whining about is now worth far in excess of that. Bit difficult for you to come up with something that suits the pro-forma, small town, bitter anti-Victorian arguments many ignorant ill-informed South Australians (including yourself it seems) have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Moomba

Ill Informed! hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

My opinions support the facts mate!!!

Clubs in Melbourne have to go!

Little Mans Syndrome - hahahahahaha!!!!!

People in SA are as much Anti-Victorian as those in Victoria are Anti-South Australian!

We scare the living **** out of you!!!!!

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by Davo75

People in SA are as much Anti-Victorian as those in Victoria are Anti-South Australian!

We scare the living **** out of you!!!!!

You really believe that don't you Now that is funny.

By the way, I take it you haven't come up with a response about Waverley funds yet? Will you be posting that later, or will you just stick to your South Australian anti-Victorian rhetoric.

Moomba

 

[Davo75]

Waverley?

mmmmmmm

That was a shocker!!!! Shouldnt have been closed down as an AFL Ground though!

Sign of the Times!!!

and yes I do believe what I am saying mate, when it comes to football, it is true!

 

[moomba]

If you are happy believing what you believe then who am I to tell you how laughably wrong you are.

I take it you now concede that the $4 million licence fee is now worth a fair bit more than that to Adelaide?

By the way, seeing as you don't care about Brisbane, Hawthorn, Bulldogs, Melbourne, North, St Kilda, Richmond, Sydney, Collingwood, Richmond I wonder how many teams you plan to have in your you beaut National competition.

Moomba

 

[GFC MAD!]

Somehow I cant see another merger happening in the AFL - not for a long time anyway.

The AFL is going along quite nicely now. All 10 Victorian clubs are still supported with a passion. The Adelaide and Perth Clubs are steadily biulding a solid tradition, and I think that the Brisbane Lions and the Sydney Swans have benefitted very well by having their victorian connections [south melbourne and fitzroy]

But still, from an outsider looking in, its way too lopsided when you see that the Australian Football League has 9 of its clubs being suburbs of one city.

Footscray, in my opinion, has bettered itself by changing its name to the 'Western Bulldogs' - wich indicate that its representing a region rather than just a suburb. The Kangaroos as well have sort of changed into a bit of a national team, and I feel that in the next 5 years or so the logical choice would be to relocate them to Canberra. They play games their now, the supporters are getting used to it, and they will still regain their colours and Kangaroo identity - and they could still play 10 or so games in Melbourne a year, and the 'Canberra Kangaroos' would provide another AFL team closer to Sydney that will once again benefit from its Victorian heritage - because it starts there with a ready-made history.

There is no reason the AFL could not survive in that concept for at least another few decades. Slight changes like that breaks it up a little - 7 Melbourne Suburban clubs, 1 Melbourne district club [the western bulldogs], 1 Geelong club, then three interstate clubs keeping the tradition alive for the other Victorian clubs [Brisbane, Sydney and Canberra], and then your two WA and SA ones.